why did it fail?

>>33576094
mud.

>>33576200
And an open design.

Cause the bolt has to reciprocate to cycle the weapon. And that exposed spring in the back gets easily fucked with mud.

>>33576094
shitty AK

not a good AK

not a real ak

not real communism

>>33576094
No direct impingement to blow out the mud

>>33576512
>>33576530
Also it wasn't a russian operator, gotta have one of those for the weapon to function as it should have.

>>33576094
because vital parts were caked with mud?

>>33576616
why?

>>33576703
Because the AK is not as well sealed to mud as the AR, Hence why mud got into the AK and caused it to malfuncton, Lesson learned: Don't dunk AK in mud bath and expect it to work.

The AK is still incredibly reliable, It can go forever without maintenance unlike the AR.

They both have pros and cons

>>33576749
explain

>>33576094
inferior slavshit weapon

>>33576809
ARs will keep firing for the time because there's little room for material to get into, but you will have to clean it to keep it running over time. You put care into it and the rifle will keep working like the day it was made.
AKs will keep firing without maintenance over time because it has looser tolerances. There's a trade-off there in that more space and looser fittings means you can jam it entirely if you get enough material (like mud) in there at one time.

Both are great rifles but it goes to show that nothing is "unjammable". Every gun needs to be cleaned at some point.

>>33576809
There is a giant opening into the interior of the receiver when the fire selector is in anything but safe.
AR's do not have such a hole- the only debris intrusion is through the small gaps around the BCG at the ejection port.

>>33576863
explain

>>33576877
why

>>33576877
Shut the fuck up, you cuck.

>>33576749
Also, they never tried the AR with the dust cover open. I'd like to see that.

>>33576094
Didn't go Tapco!

>>33576925
explain

File: Mud.png (761KB, 835x429px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 835x429px

>>33577009
They did though, several times.
https://youtu.be/LyXndCxn9K4
>3:50 and 12:20
https://youtu.be/YAneTFiz5WU
>2:30
https://youtu.be/PYfGq1yk66Q
>6:00

>>33576094
because its full of mud

>>33576094
>>33576200
>>33576216
>>33576219
>>33576512
>>33576530
>>33576531
>>33576554
>>33576616
>>33576703
>>33576749
>>33576809
>>33576830
>>33576863
>>33576871
>>33576877
>>33576888
>>33576925
>>33577009
>>33577030
>>33577154
>>33577163
>>33577180
explain

>>33577189
explain

>>33576863
>>33576871
It should also be noted that when measured by rounds fired there isn't an appreciable difference in lifespan between the two rifles.

>>33577189
>>33577207
explain

>>33576094
because the test was run by two biased cuckolds

>>33577257
Surely they sabotaged the rifle, there's no way it could have failed.
And they somehow enhanced the AR, it should have jammed when they test fired it.

>>33577269
explain

>>33577269

>using a shitty homebuild ak
>using a top tier bcm ar
>shitty ak home build has tapco trigger which drags horrendously on bcg

"fair" test

>>33578262
BCM is like mid or upper mid tier

>>33578262
>SP01 passes with flying colors

>>33578262
Why don't you mud test your own AKs?

File: 947.png (151KB, 235x230px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 235x230px

>A gun jams when you intentionally pour literal shovels of mud right into its internals
Who would've fucking thought.

Good thing nobody would ever do that in a real life-threatening situation, not even soldiers, and consequently never get their weapons jammed on purpose.

Fucking stupid.

>>33576094
The extractor got covered in mud and the gun just stops working if the extractor fails.

>>33580851
oops, thought you posted the SKS test.

The AK failed because the Mud cemented the bolt in place which prevents the gun from extracting or cycling.

>>33579560
I can't really a scenario where a gun gets THAT muddy. Not one where the soldier wielding it doesn't drown along with it.
But it's not meant to be a definitive scientific test, it's just seeing how different designs hold up to a similar mishap.

File: 1475610706438.jpg (6KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 240x240px

>>33576094
If you put mud in a gun's receiver it doesn't work anymore.

really gets the noggin joggin :^)

File: 1491515137225.webm (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

AR-15 mud test.

File: 1476373871186.jpg (53KB, 444x467px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 444x467px

>>33578262
>b-but it w-wasn't Russia brand Russian mud(R)(TM)(C) !!!

>>33576094

AK reliability doesn't come from "Never stopping." It stops all the time. It's an open design.

AK reliability comes from the fact that it's easy to get back in working order after fucking it up.

>Dunked it in mud? Drop the mag, pour your canteen through the action, and you're good to go.

>Dropped it in water? Drop the mag, shake the gun a little, wait for debris to fall out, then reload. Good to go.

Remember, it's a grunt weapon that conscripted farmers are supposed to understand intuitively. Doesn't mean it will always run flawlessly, but that flaws can be easily rectified by any idiot, at any time.

>>33583265
>H&K propaganda video
ftfy

>>33583471

In the same vein, try any of those things in an AR.

Yes, the AR is harder to fuck up.

But it's also way easier to fuck up forever. (Or at least until you can get to an armory.)

Design philosophy and philosophy of use are entirely different.

>>33578726
have and they passed

>>33583395
>but the ar wasn't made by cuckold international in the h&k test

any mil spec ak would have worked, not some shithouse homebuild

>>33583471
>pour your canteen through the action
My mindset has always been "piss into the action" because wasting water when you have an alternative seems silly.

>>33584922
Video it and put it on youtube.

>>33583265
thats not even mud. its just water

>>33576094
Unless your a woman and trip Every time you run these mud test have no real world value to them. Rarely would someone drop a gun in such thick mud and have it sink so it covers the entire action. Not only that unless shit has gone so far south that your probably dead anyway, someone that isn't an idiot would clean as much of that shit off as possible. Lastly if it was a battlefield pickup, again shits going bad for you and why did you loose your 1st gun.

>>33583265

Enough with mud tests. We need water tests.

>>33576094
It failed because tons of mud entered the action. In real life, you'd just pop up the dust cover and clean summarily the action with your fingers, and the AK is back into action. The AR didn't fail because being a fairly closed system, it's difficult for shit to enter. The weakest point would either be the trigger or the bolt when it's open (like when mag is empty). Once it jams, you need to clean way more thoroughly than the AK. That's one reason why ARs often fail tests where they get submerged.

AR-10s are the best

The added recoil blows fucking everything out of the gun

>>33576703
>>33577189
because it was dipped in sticky mud?
and why wouldn't it fail if it got into the internals too badly or blocked the bolt from closing entirely?

>>33577911
>>33577246
>>33577207
>>33577189
>>33577154
>>33576877
>>33576809

I like this new form of trolling.

>>33577009
Actually, they did

>>33589103
explain

>>33577189

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYqjcHYTQgQ

>>33578262
>it wasn't an AK BRAND AK blessed by orthodox priests in mother Russia!!!1

It's time to face the fact that the "etalon of reliability" AK is something generations of people have dreamt up, rather than a tangible thing. It only exists in your mind. The rifle is comfortably within the area of normal reliability for military carbines (outside of extremely cold climate where it excels).
The AK reliability is literally a meme in the original meaning, an idea that got proliferated to the point where it picked up a life of its own. It's an almost religious dogma - millions of people around the world who have never touched an AK in their life simply *know* it's dead reliable, and they will actively try to defend that belief when challenged.
Deny it and you're a laughingstock. Prove it to them and they'll try to rationalize away what they're seeing: the test was somehow rigged (straight out denial), the AK used isn't enough of an AK (no true Scotsman), failing after being subjected to mud/dirt isn't a real malfunction (moving the goalposts), etc.
They'll cherrypick the available evidence and when all else fails, they'll try to support the dogma using the dogma itself / appeal to common belief: the AK is extraordinarily reliable because everyone knows the AK is extraordinarily realiable!
The internet only aggregates all of this because it's full of autists who are only capable of dealing with extremes: either a rifle is the best thing ever or it's absolute trash.

It didn't fail. They set it up to fail.

>>33576749
I guess this puts cold water on the myth that someone finding an AK after it had been buried for years and still being functional without cleaning it. That said, hosing it down is enough to get it working again.

>>33589673
Your comment is the best absolute trash in the tubes of the interwebs

File: 1489025487112.png (82KB, 256x245px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 256x245px

>>33576094
The Ak even though with its open design is far more durable and a simpler design. It was made for uneducated, poor farmers after all. The Ar is far more complicated (only a con for in training aspect) and somewhat less durable,but, not overly so. However, with good cleaning and maintenance the Ar is a great rifle possibly better than the Ak in many aspects, just don't get sand in them desu.

>>33584947
Not only that but it will be pressurised